High Court dismisses suit challenging Deputy IGP appointment
By DL News
Published
1 min read
The court presided over by Justice Richard Apietu, found that the applicant had not correctly invoked the court's jurisdiction when filing the case under Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 16 of the Courts Act (Act 459).
A High Court in Accra has dismissed a case challenging the appointment of Commissioner of Police (COP) Christian Tetteh Yohuno as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of Operations.
The court presided over by Justice Richard Apietu, found that the applicant had not correctly invoked the court's jurisdiction when filing the case under Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 16 of the Courts Act (Act 459).
Justice Apietu noted that the roles fulfilled by the President and the Police Council in this appointment were administrative, not judicial and that Article 23 was the appropriate provision for the case.
After the appointment of COP Tetteh Yohuno by President Akufo-Addo on July 17, 2024, Emmanuel Felix Mantey filed a suit aiming to prevent COP Yohuno from assuming or performing the role of Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of Operations.
Mantey also sought to restrain the Attorney General and Police Council from further supporting COP Yohuno’s appointment and requested a quo warranto order questioning the authority behind COP Yohuno’s appointment by the President on July 17, 2024.
The respondents raised initial objections, arguing that the case was filed in the wrong forum, contravening Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
In his ruling, Justice Apietu stated that neither the President nor the Police Council, as respondents, are subject to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 141 of the Constitution or Section 16 of the Courts Act, as they are not lower courts.
Justice Apietu further clarified that the President's appointment of COP Yohuno was an administrative action, not a judicial decision, meaning Article 141 and Section 16 were not applicable.
The court emphasized that jurisdiction is essential in any legal matter, and Justice Apietu pointed out that Order 55 of C.I. 147, which the applicant cited, is a procedural rule rather than a source of the High Court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the application was dismissed due to improper invocation of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
